Is it true?

Autothrust Blue said:
I'm trying. Actually thinking about getting my CFI (if I don't upgrade here in the next few months), along with getting glider and sea ratings.

I'm speaking specifically about what my airline offers me. Other than the opportunity to learn to mumble "Packs on probes on" (which isn't even the flow over "there" anymore), there's really not that much.


The Aspen service does sound fun, but I do not live in Denver...
Click to expand...

I understand, but you seem to have taken advantage of other opportunities available to you... Same difference IMO. Thanks again for your help the other day BTW!
 
GypsyPilot said:
I understand, but you seem to have taken advantage of other opportunities available to you... Same difference IMO. Thanks again for your help the other day BTW!
Click to expand...
It's likely that I'll get to collect all three type ratings here. If nothing else, I'm train-able.

Oh, no problem.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I'm trying. Actually thinking about getting my CFI (if I don't upgrade here in the next few months), along with getting glider and sea ratings.

I'm speaking specifically about what my airline offers me. Other than the opportunity to learn to mumble "Packs on probes on" (which isn't even the flow over "there" anymore), there's really not that much.
Click to expand...

It still is, in fact... Though it's packs, anti ice, etc. now.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
GypsyPilot said:
I don't know. So what's your hangup on this creed anyway? Nobody here cares, so why continuously harp on it?
Click to expand...

Good question!


Actions speak louder than words. Creeds like this are mostly fluff if the actions don't back it up. Also to have it focused solely on the First Officer is ridiculous.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I'd say so. Everyone who went through the eCRM course in my class took something away from it - including those of us who had done CRM at another airline already.

Did (does) it have its silly features? Yes. Is it the best CRM class that I've had in my time at the regional level? Also yes.
Click to expand...

Was it taught by and developed by one person? @GypsyPilot ?

Is this thing damaging your hearing?
k2-_ffc9d2b4-43b4-4247-b3bb-454ac066f98b.v1.jpg
Click to expand...

I want to make sure I understand what was being said.

I have no problem critiquing a First Officer I flew with, but it was more of a conversation, not a list of bullet points they need to work on. I usually started it with a question, 'out of curiosity, why did you do it that way', instead of a sit down on my lap "kid" (your term) and let me show you. Wanted to make sure you and @Hacker15e seemed to be getting at.
 
Seggy said:
If that was part of the course, I question the rest.
Click to expand...
Okay, get a job there, go through the course and critique it. Better yet, volunteer to make it better.

Otherwise, talk about things you're actually qualified to talk about.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Seggy said:
If that was part of the course, I question the rest.
Click to expand...

You are making entirely no sense. Have you read the rest of the course material? What specifically about the rest of the course do you question?

A subset of this text appears a the front of my Jepp binder in the aviators code, therefore should questions all of the procedures in there too?
A subset of this text appears on the ALPA website, therefore I should question the rest of what they do?

Is it the concept of creeds, or professional codes of conduct that you question? Do you have evidence that they are somehow contrary to safety? Or that instructors identify certain behaviors that are special emphasis areas to their organizations?
 
drunkenbeagle said:
You are making entirely no sense. Have you read the rest of the course material? What specifically about the rest of the course do you question?
Click to expand...

I am questioning on who was it developed by? Was it one individual? Or a group of individuals that developed the course? There maybe only a handful of folks that can develop a course like that individually, doubtful they are working at SkyWest.

Furthermore, you have one bad item in a CRM course it can undermine the whole goal of the course.

A subset of this text appears a the front of my Jepp binder in the aviators code, therefore should questions all of the procedures in there too?
A subset of this text appears on the ALPA website, therefore I should question the rest of what they do?

Is it the concept of creeds, or professional codes of conduct that you question? Do you have evidence that they are somehow contrary to safety? Or that instructors identify certain behaviors that are special emphasis areas to their organizations?
Click to expand...

A lot of that is common sense. I think 'creeds' are written by folks who like to make themselves little fiefdoms and try to promote what they know which usually isn't nearly as much as they really do.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Yessir.

No continuing education happens after the ATP, unless you count hanging on type ratings or adding category/class ratings. Recurrent? Congratulations, you can push the sim through the same maneuvers you did last year.
Click to expand...

Yep, totally bums me out. I was trying to think of some way to have a legit system of CEUs, but unless companies are on board with it, it ain't going to happen - and if it costs anything at all, you can basically kiss that good by. It's sad, because I would love to go to a lot of the safety or aviation seminars out there - especially if I could go for CEUs a couple times a year, but very few companies would reimburse you for it, so you'd end up paying for it out of pocket - which, is doable, but less fun. For now I just read as much as I can about topics I think are important, but without an external critique, it's hard to know what you could do better on.
 
ppragman said:
For now I just read as much as I can about topics I think are important, but without an external critique, it's hard to know what you could do better on.
Click to expand...

I was more than willing to critique some of the things about what I was reading about Alaska flying on here, but was told I don't understand.

So, not sure what you are talking about here.
 
Seggy said:
I am questioning on who was it developed by? Was it one individual? Or a group of individuals that developed the course? There maybe only a handful of folks that can develop a course like that individually, doubtful they are working at SkyWest.

Furthermore, you have one bad item in a CRM course it can undermine the whole goal of the course.
Click to expand...

The point I think Seggy is trying to make is that if that creed is evenly remotely part of what the course developer's idea of what CRM is, the rest of the course most likely doesn't have anything to do with CRM. We are actually dealing with the same issue where I work now. We had no CRM program and they tasked a guy who had no idea what CRM is to develop the course. Instead of going out and bringing in an already developed CRM program and working it in to our training model, he developed his own course, based on what he thought CRM was. The end result actually doesn't even touch ANY of the corner stones of CRM and, to anybody who has actually been through a real CRM program it is a complete joke. But, because a lot of the more senior guys have never been exposed to actual CRM here (the "captain is god" mentality is only now starting to go away) they read our "CRM" program (which by the way, is being taught by CBT only) and think they now are CRM Masters when in reality, they couldn't tell you what TEM stands for our who Dr. Reason was.

A creed setting out requirements of what makes a "good" FO is pretty much antithetical to a strong CRM skill set.
 
BobDDuck said:
The point I think Seggy is trying to make is that if that creed is evenly remotely part of what the course developer's idea of what CRM is, the rest of the course most likely doesn't have anything to do with CRM. We are actually dealing with the same issue where I work now. We had no CRM program and they tasked a guy who had no idea what CRM is to develop the course. Instead of going out and bringing in an already developed CRM program and working it in to our training model, he developed his own course, based on what he thought CRM was. The end result actually doesn't even touch ANY of the corner stones of CRM and, to anybody who has actually been through a real CRM program it is a complete joke. But, because a lot of the more senior guys have never been exposed to actual CRM here (the "captain is god" mentality is only now starting to go away) they read our "CRM" program (which by the way, is being taught by CBT only) and think they now are CRM Masters when in reality, they couldn't tell you what TEM stands for our who Dr. Reason was.

A creed setting out requirements of what makes a "good" FO is pretty much antithetical to a strong CRM skill set.
Click to expand...

Thank you for succinctly making my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top